Obama-hating white supremacist terror plotter murdered by wife [Archive]

Alan_OldStudent

03-10-2009, 08:30 PM

Hi Gordon

What is happening in the economy is going to bring out the nuts on both sides of the political spectrum-it always does. This story could very well be true who knows?

As you imply, Gordon, it is hard to know the details from the sparse bit of coverage this story has had. I'm not sure why the major media did not consider it newsworthy enough to cover more extensively. And I agree that in times of crises like these, some pretty bizarre people pop out of the woodwork. It's hard to know how delusional this guy was, what sort of paranoid fantasy he may have been operating under. As time goes by, I think we'll know more details.

At the same time I can't think of a better cover story for a woman who killed her husband and stands to inherit an estate that contains a trust fund that generates $10 million a year.
Apparently, the woman is pleading an insanity defense. At this point, I don't think we can do more than speculate on her motives, and there is precious little information to inform the speculation.

The man in question is reputed to have a history of domestic violence (http://www.bangornews.com/detail/99358.html). He may well have been the type of creep who beats his women, and she may just have snapped.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

Hi Mike

Alan wow! That is stunning the News media never carried that news! It will be an interesting trial, seeing who ordered the depleted uranium, the wife that killed the National Socialist or him the victim.
That is, if it gets much coverage. I hope it does. It will be interesting to see the details.

If he was planning this my bet is the jury will reward her for saving the USA. Makes me wonder why she just didn't call the cops.

As I was just saying to Gordon, it may well be that the wife killed the husband in a fit of rage because of some sort of spousal abuse. I kind of doubt she was thinking about the USA. As you say, she didn't just call the cops, or perhaps she had called the cops about spousal abuse and they did not take effective action, or perhaps the wanna-be Nazi was able to sweet-talk her into disregarding any restraining orders she may have had.

They did leave Chino, California and go to Maine, and he was a wealthy man. They may well have been leaving some sort of court-ordered separation behind to get back together again well out of the purview of California law. Or she may have left on her own and he stalked her, found her, and wormed his way back into her life.

What the Southern Poverty Law Center says about Amber Cummings on this web page (http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/02/11/slain-neo-nazi-angry-over-obama-victory-reportedly-prepared-dirty-bomb-components/#more-2961) may give some credence to some of the above speculations.

According to the FBI report, which was originally posted online by WikiLeaks, an organization that posts leaked documents, police also found a National Socialist Movement (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=617) membership application filled out by Cummings. The NSM currently is the largest neo-Nazi organization in the country, with 69 chapters in 30 states.

Amber Cummings reportedly told police that her husband was “very upset” over Barack Obama being elected president, had been in contact with white supremacist groups, and that he’d been mixing chemicals in their kitchen sink while talking about dirty bombs. Authorities say she claimed that she killed her husband after years of mental, physical, and sexual abuse. Police are terming his death a “domestic violence homicide” but, at this point, no charges have been filed.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent

Andy62

03-10-2009, 09:18 PM

Alan,I hope that the media follows up on this case. I can't believe that they wouldn't unless it is just a senario developed by some creative defense lawyer. When I was in Counter Intelligence during the Cold War I was involved with penetrations of a number of fringe groups from White Supremacists to Black Nationalists to The Communist Party USA. Ofcourse at the time the main threat was the Communists which I was very aware of having been stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were all given accelerated training by the US Army Rangers for the potential conflict which fortunately never occurred. Inspite of their diverse motives the joiners in most of these groups have similar psychological profiles and to over simplify it are powerless people seeking power through affiliation with a cause. They also tend to be very angry people and attract a particular type of woman as well. This looks interesting. Gordon

Alan_OldStudent

03-11-2009, 01:41 PM

Hi Gordon,

Alan,I hope that the media follows up on this case. I can't believe that they wouldn't unless it is just a senario developed by some creative defense lawyer.
I can picture another reason they may not play this much. I think the press goes in for a certain amount of self-censorship, based on what they think is going to sell eyeball space to their patrons, the advertisers. Right now, with a couple of wars going on, perhaps home-grown terrorists of European and Christian background aren't as interesting to the media as foreign ones.

Can you imagine the coverage this would have had if the man were a Muslim with a middle-eastern name, whose wife murdered him, and then the police found the makings of a dirty nuclear terrorist device and an application to join al Qaeda?

When I was in Counter Intelligence during the Cold War I was involved with penetrations of a number of fringe groups from White Supremacists to Black Nationalists to The Communist Party USA.

Interesting observation, Gordon.

So does that mean that you had first-hand knowledge of Cointelpro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro)?

If so, did you personally know about such of its activities as black-bag jobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bag_jobs#Use_in_the_FBI), getting people fired or blacklisted (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cpusa.htm#anonymousletters), evicted, poison pen letters (http://books.google.com/books?id=BU-VEIeJmd0C&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=cointelpro+%22poison+pen%22&source=bl&ots=fPdnNtId3R&sig=TaSI8fycJpOpPzmagMjuLylVr6A&hl=en&ei=Oma3SYWSPJmktQONx5zsAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result), frame-ups (http://www.opednews.com/articles/FBI-official-in-Omaha-Two-by-Michael-Richardson-081229-270.html), and other activities as documented by the so-called Church Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee) reports (United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities). Did you know any of the participants in this program?

I ask because I know several intelligent, loving, generous people who were targets of this and similar programs, and we have a national holiday that celebrates the birthday of one of Cointelpro's targets, the Christian pastor known as Martin Luther King.

...the joiners in most of these groups have similar psychological profiles and to over simplify it are powerless people seeking power through affiliation with a cause. They also tend to be very angry people and attract a particular type of woman as well....

What kind of woman is that? Is she a different personality than the man who is attracted to such groups?

In Saudi Arabia, a 75-year-old widow (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/75yearold-widow-to-be-flogged-1641548.html) is sentenced to be flogged 40 times for consorting with 2 men not her immediate relatives, a violation of that regime's strict interpretation of Shariah. She had been meeting them to receive food.

Is the life-long anger that so many women in Saudi Arabia feel against such oppression as sinful as the life-long anger of the religious authorities who are responsible for this flogging?

If such women join a non-mainstream group to end their oppression, they risk arrest, beatings, ostracism, slander, assault, being made homeless, even stoning. Should we consider them as heroes? Aren't they misfits in Saudi society? There are such brave Muslim women who do such things, stating that the religious authorities make a mockery out of true Islam.

Is it always wrong to seek meaning in one's life by affiliating with a cause greater than one individual?

Indeed, Mr Cummings' angry outbursts, his abuse of his wife, his white-racist views, his history of fighting and temper tantrums is horrifying.

But Martin Luther King carried life-long anger too. True, his hatred was of Jim Crow and discrimination rather than whole classes of people, but he carried life-long anger towards the laws, customs, and arrogance of those who enforced Jim Crow, that uniquely American form of racialist oppression and terrorism. And many criticized Dr. King for it.

As a matter of fact, many accused Dr. King of being a a socialist, communist, a subversive. You may also remember that many called him "Dr. Martin Luther Coon." (For those not in the United States, the term "coon" is a very offensive racist term for "African-American."). Dr. King was accused of "going too far," not being "moderate" enough, "stirring up trouble," and rushing change too fast. During the 1960s, Dr. King was very controversial, and the FBI's director, J. Edgar Hoover, made him and his movement a special target of his programs of disruption, slanders, harassment, arrests, and worse.

But in his case, couldn't one argue that his anger was a force for good because he focused it on creating a mass movement for justice and peace...a movement which the Cointelpro program spent much taxpayer money in an attempt to discredit and disrupt, a movement that was first small and isolated and eventually grew until it had the support and allegiance of most all right-thinking Americans?

Do you think being angry is always bad?

For example, during the infamous events of 9/11/2001, the people on the fourth plane that crashed heard on cell phones that hijackers had crashed into the World Trade Center and realized that the hijackers on their plane were part of the same group. They wrestled with and fought against the hijakers, and no doubt, they felt white-hot anger. Was that bad? Can one make the moral equation between the anger of the hijackers and the people who fought the hijackers on the plane?

The abolitionists of the 19th century were known to carry a lot anger in their zeal to abolish slavery. Do you think that this was a manifestation of their being social misfits? Weren't they, in fact, social misfits because they could not accept the status quo?

Is the thug's anger and scorn for his victim the moral equivalent of the anger and contempt of the mugging victim?

Is the victim of spousal abuse's anger as reprehensible as the anger of the abuser?

After all, you probably know from your background in law enforcement, as well as people you have known, that wife-beaters often feels quite morally justified in their activities? ("She was really asking for it" is perhaps the most common rationalization.)

In short, doesn't it matter what is in the soul of the angry person?

Regards,

Alan OldStudent

Free

03-11-2009, 03:59 PM

Alan_OldStudent

03-11-2009, 05:21 PM

I believe that Anger, is an emotion that is very base in nature, and contains a lot of blocked energy. If this energy can be directed in a positive fashion, it can be useful, as Alan describes.

However, Anger can be the most destructive of emotions to the person experiencing it, especially if it is allowed to linger, is blocked or repressed. It can lead to all sorts of physical problems, and is just not good for long term physical or psychological health.

If it is possible to experience Anger briefly, and then let it go, this is the best scenario. We can not realistically expect to avoid, or not experience Anger, but we can choose to allow it to move through, and dissipate, rather than allowing it to eat away at our insides.

Hi Free,

You make some good points about anger. It's best not to let it fester.

When we are aware of it, we need to analyze what caused the anger, what the source of it is, and then act positively to remedy the situation that brings us into the angry state. If we let it overwhelm us, it can defeat us.

There is a reason boxers often taunt their opponents and make them angry. They hope to be able to make their opponent react from a flash of anger rather than a flash of strategy.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent

John Peterson

03-11-2009, 05:23 PM

Hey Guys,

This is an interesting one that I had not previously heard about. I think the reason that it may not have been publicized in the media is for the same reason that the specific crimes committed by serial killers is not allowed to be revealed in the press. In essence, it's because some kook might read about it and feel inspired to do the same thing. And no, I'm not joking.

---John Peterson

Andy62

03-11-2009, 05:53 PM

Alan, You have covered a lot of ground there so let me try to answer some of your questions. Intelligence is a broad subject that covers many areas and is as old as mankind and as basic as human nature. Everybody in international politics does it and friends spy on friends as well as potential enemies. All intelligence activity is highly compartmentalized and I was at a low "special agent" level. Never the less the training and the experiences were not only interesting and exciting,but one of the highlights of my life and taught me to look at history and current events in a totally new way. I saw nothing during my service in the Intelligence Corp that went against American values.

Regarding your first comment, I would agree that the news media goes with what is "hot "and what will attract eyeballs in a very competitve industry. My experince was that local terrorists did not have anywhere near the resources or coordinated planning behind them that the Communists did at that time or that the international terrorists do today.

The activites that I was familiar with were evenly divided between groups on both ends of the political spectrum.

All of my knowledge of J.Edgar Hoover comes largely from the media and personal reading and not from any personal experiences. He was very aggressive ,but that was a time of great national fear of the Communists and various local groups that might join with them. He was no more obsessed than Jack and Bobby Kennedy were with Fidel Castro and there has been a lot of speculation by knowlegable sources that obsession may have either directly or indirectly lead to Jack Kennedy's assassination including the history channel's production of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

The women who follow men who join extreme causes whether left or right , like the men themselves, in my experience tend to very angry and have a strong degree of paranoia. Some of the women tend to like "bad boys" and find them exciting the same as women who fall in love with serial killers. As Oprah has pointed out over the last few days in the Chris Brown -Rhianna situation -there are women who will seek out men who will abuse them and keep going back to them inspite of the abuse. There are also abuse seeking and victim type personalities that we run into thoughout life.

Anger directed against unjust situations with a desire to change them I view as a productive anger.

Intelligence is part of life and neither you or I are going to change it. Some one said that as long as you have aggressive power seeking personalities that make it to the top of governments you are going to have intelligence. This is true even with those who deceptively play a passive,underdog role.I don't see that change happening in the near future. Donald Trump in a somewhat self aggrandizing statement said"New York real estate developers are the smartest and most ruthless men in the world," but he didn't have a clue.

Obsessive anger regardless of the source which is directed against a special group [ such as women or a minority] is wrong whether it is sanctioned by a state or a religion.

Life is not fair and the world is not always just and those are all situations that we have to live with and do our best in our own small way to change them.

As Helen Keller said,"Life is a daring adventure or nothing at all. Gordon

MikeNY

03-11-2009, 05:55 PM

Alan_OldStudent

03-11-2009, 07:00 PM

Alan the local press sensored that a man in the next large City where a Muslim Immirgrant was angry at his wife and he decapitated her rather than be divoriced by her. The news being censored again. I've read that Tim McVeigh might have been a Muslim and had a Muslim Connection, and O'Reilly had several guests that thought McVeigh and Terry Nichols had a Al Qeada Connection. http://www.jaynadavis.com/highlights.html

As a kid I thought it was common for the FBI to film weddings and funerals as they photographed Americans of Sicilian and Southern Italian decent at social gatherings. So Big Brother has a wider reach than people think.

Heck MikeNY,

I didn't know that story was censored. I first read about it in this article (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Founder_of_Buffalo_N.Y._Muslim_cable_0214.html) in the left-liberal Raw Story website.

The left-liberal Huffington Post carried more than a few articles covering this murder. For example, one entitled Muzzammil Hassan: Muslim TV Exec Accused Of Beheading Wife In NY May Have Committed "Honor Killing" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/muzzammil-hassan-muslim-t_n_167772.html) carried a pretty damning description of this crime, practically accusing the husband of doing it.

Also on the Huffington Post, a Muslim woman covers this story with an editorial comment titled "Honor Killing" and Islam (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/honor-killing-and-islam_b_168401.html).

I also see that MSNBC carried the story in an article titled Man arrested in wife’s beheading (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29189095/) and the Rochester Democrat and Chronical (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090306/NEWS0203/903060333/1002/NEWS) carried an article called "Violence against women is a form of hate crime," which features this story.

So I must respectfully disagree with you that there has been anywhere near the degree of censorship over this story as one finds in the white-nationalist Nazi sympathizer wanna-be nuclear terrorist.

The last article that I cited discusses a battered women's counselor's thoughts:
Domestic violence is about control, she said, and there are many reasons victims stay with abusers: religion, children, or excuses that seem to make sense....."You will be affected by this issue regardless of who you are," Mazzotta said. "The highest risk factor for being affected by domestic violence is that you're female."

Regards,

Alan OldStudentt

Andy62

03-11-2009, 07:39 PM

Maybe the simplest explanation of why the story wasn't carried in the press was because the crime was a spousal murder of which there are many. The man may have been a kook and a Nazi sympathiser and may have had all kinds of fantasies and plans,but he had not carried any of them out. The wife was the one who committed the murder and it is not unusual for people who commit crimes and particularly murders to come up with all kinds to cover stories and ways to blame others. She should have reported a potential threat to the police or the FBI. An insanity defense is hard to prove which may be an indication that her attorney doesn't think he can defend her on anyother basis.

MikeNY

03-11-2009, 10:38 PM

Gordon I have got to agree with Alan, from the information reported in that blog and viedo etc it appears clear the guy was getting ready for something. Depleted uranium and chemical does sound bad, just for the information providered something was amiss. This guy was up to something.

Alan maybe my edition of the newspaper was printed before the story broke, it wasn't in the morning edition I got but my paper is delivered very early. Possibly later editions broke the news, I saw it online or would not have known.

Alan_OldStudent

03-11-2009, 10:42 PM

Hi Gordon,
Maybe the simplest explanation of why the story wasn't carried in the press was because the crime was a spousal murder of which there are many.
Certainly that may be one possible reason why this story was not covered more extensively.

The man may have been a kook and a Nazi sympathiser and may have had all kinds of fantasies and plans,but he had not carried any of them out.

To me, it seems much more likely than not that he was not only a kook and a Nazi sympathizer, but he was also an extremely dangerous man, close to carrying out a spectacular terrorist attack in the Timothy McVeigh vein.

By all accounts, this obviously deranged Nazi wannabe had a long history of bullying, violence, and lots of money. He did acquire material sufficient to make a dirty bomb. That's probably something that you or I would have trouble acquiring.

After all, Jose Padilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist)), an American citizen of Latin heritage, dark-brown skin, who coincidentally is a convert to Islam, was rounded up on the streets of Chicago, held in military prison for 3-1/2 years without charge or access to a court, because President Bush personally decided he was an "enemy combatant," based on the intelligence services allegations that Mr. Padilla was plotting to set off just such a radioctive bomb.

Then, after years of holding him, the Bush administration dropped those charges for lack of evidence. Instead, they tried Mr. Padilla in a civilian court.

This whole story, especially at the beginning, but really for months and even years, was big headline news.

But then a white, European-American with presumably a Christian background actually acquires the material for such a nuclear terror weapon, a man with a history of disturbed and violent behavior. Yet somehow, the mainstream media by and large apparently decide that's not worthy of coverage, not of interest to the American public.

Why in heck not?

That's what I want to know!

I don't think some "gummint" bigwigs ordered the press not to run with this. Rather, this seems to be more a case of self-censorship for reasons I stated in a previous post, having more to do with crassness, pandering to prejudices, and currying favor with certain powerful economic and political interests.

Nevertheless, facts are facts, and unlike Mr. al-Muhajir (Mr. Padilla's new name), Mr James G. Cummings actually acquired the materials to make a radioactive terrorist weapon, actually bragged rather carelessly about using it, and actually said his motivation was a racist one, owing to the election of Barak Obama.

But it seems that an actual white-American terrorist who is provably engaged in a terrorist plot, who actually possesses weapons-grade radiation bomb-making materials is not as newsworthy as a dark-brown Muslim malcontent, who an anonymous "informant" alleges has a similar plan. Bear in mind that this speculation later abandoned by its proponents in the "intelligence community," and Mr. Padilla was charged with a crime unrelated to his preventive detention.

Now doesn't that kind of contradict all that politically-correct codswollop about the mainstream media being mired in a "liberal bias"?

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/icons/cowblink.gif

.....The wife was the one who committed the murder and it is not unusual for people who commit crimes and particularly murders to come up with all kinds to cover stories and ways to blame others.......An insanity defense is hard to prove which may be an indication that her attorney doesn't think he can defend her on anyother basis.

Well, that seems to be exactly the case to me. My guess is that she murdered Mr. Cummings because she snapped after years of sexual, mental, and physical abuse. This illustrates exactly Free's point about the damage repressed rage can cause when it explodes.

So I think you're probably right, here. If the defense could argue that Mrs. Cummings was attempting to prevent a terrorist attack, they certainly would not rely on an insanity plea. The true motive is probably much less noble and much more human.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent

Andy62

03-11-2009, 10:52 PM

Alan, We probably will never know. My interest in "complex strategies" is still alive and I like to watch "Forensic Files" on True TV. It never ceases to amaze me the number of different types of plots that people come up. There are several spousal murders featured on the program per week. Gordon

MikeNY

03-12-2009, 07:04 AM

Alan I think you have errored on two points, wealth transcends race in the USA. Your thinking that the white National Socialist Neo-Nazi type was given a pass by the press due to race; before he is white, he is rich. Yeah sounds from the information like he was planning something, you and free might be on the right track an abused wife strikes back. This guy used his resources to possibly beat the Courts, relocating to the East Coast to stay with his abused wife. If Madoff wasn't a rich Democrat you think he'd out on Bail? How many poor Democrats that scam people get bailed out of the Tombs. There is Institutional Racism in the USA; we call it Affirmative Action; equal protection under Law doesn't exist in the USA.

The second point is the liberal Press, of course there is a Liberal Bias in the Media, they admit it. It is like saying Fox doesn't tilt to the right slightly, everyone knows it does, just as we all know the Media fell over into the arms of Left long ago. The Media looks a lot like a Political groupie whore for Obama, even Democrats think it acted like a slut for Obama and an attack dog to Hillary in the campaign, remember Saturday Night Live.

Alan_OldStudent

03-14-2009, 03:11 AM

Hi MikeNY,

Alan I think you have errored on two points, wealth transcends race in the USA.
It appears that I did not express myself clearly because I did not mean to imply that race transcends wealth in the USA.

It's an American dogma that we are a classless society. Everybody is "middle class," from the corporate CEO making 3 million a year to the sanitation worker making $15 an hour.

To deny this conventional wisdom is politically incorrect heresy. Such heretics get slammed for promoting "class warfare."

But is it really promoting class warfare to note that class struggle always has been a fact of America, or is it just being realistic.

Consider this: For capitalism to exist, there needs to be the wage earning class (the great majority) and the tiny capitalist class. The various factions among capitalists vie for political leverage through their two political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats.

To the extent that the wage-earner class and the capitalist class have competing interests, there is class conflict, sometimes more acute, sometimes not so obvious, but always present.

Of course,we have other socioeconomic classes, such as small business owners, small farmers, independent professionals such as lawyers, doctors, personal trainers:), independent artisans, the unemployed, etc, as well as a small percentage of persons who do not neatly fit into any class at all.

But political power rests with the corporate elite through their political representatives, while the wage earners have no political party and no political power as a class.

Alan OldStudent's Golden Rule explains this:
He who has the gold makes the rules.

Historically, race discrimination and racism have propped up the status quo and even spurred the development of early American capitalism. During most of the 19th century, chattel slavery (http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/primer/types.html) in great part built America's wealth and infrastructure.. The American Civil War of 1861-1865 overthrew the rule of the slavocracy and saw the political rise of northern finance, corporations, and industry.

Then, in the last decades of the 19th century and the last two-thirds of the 20th century, the old-south Jim Crow laws and more informal northern segregation helped maintain the political status quo.

The truth is, if equality were as profitable as racism, we would have racial harmony today.
Instead, we have racism's remnants, although overt expressions of racism have become somewhat unfashionable in polite society lately.

*******************

MikeNY, you say affirmative action is racist. For reasons which I will not go into here, I respectfully disagree. Perhaps at another time, I'll have the privilege of discussing that topic with you. I fear I am becoming too long-winded and perhaps tiresome.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide.gif

Your thinking that the white National Socialist Neo-Nazi type was given a pass by the press due to race; before he is white, he is rich.

MikeNY, I did not say the press gave Mr. Cummings a pass because he is white. Instead, I asked these questions:

What role did race have in the mainstream media's decision to treat this story as being trivial and meaningless?

Why did the press not consider Mr. Cummings to be newsworthy but Mr. Padilla to be a big story in the so-called “war on terror?” Mr. Cummings actually planned a major terrorist radioactive bomb attack of historic magnitude and scope. But the media ignored this story.

On the other hand, the mainstream media uncritically slavered over the Bush administration's since-abandoned dirty-bomb accusation against Mr. Padilla, abandoned owing to lack of evidence.

I don't have the answers. Do you?

Mr. Cummings was a European-American, undoubtedly of Christian background, and Mr. Padilla was a black Latin man of the Islamic faith. Don't you wonder what part race and religion played in the media coverage? I do.

Could it possibly be that Mr. Cummings' story distracted attention from the Bush administration's justification of its war-on terror and the danger of Londonistan?

And here is a followup question for you: How does the neglect of this story jibe with your theory that a coven of biased flaming liberals control the media? Wouldn't that be red meat for the libs?

Why the silence on the part of those Bolshie elitist pencil necks and liberal weenies in the nation's editorial offices?

You also state:
Yeah sounds from the information like he was planning something...
MikeNY, don't trivialize this.

Mr Cummings planned the terrorist murder of tens of thousands of people at a United States presidential inauguration, because he did not like a black man winning the election!

How could anyone be blasé as our press seems to have been?

According to the Wikileaks article (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/The_%22dirty_bomb%22_that_disappeared):
[the FBI investigative report] says that four 1-gallon containers of 35 percent hydrogen peroxide, uranium, thorium, lithium metal, thermite, aluminum powder, beryllium, boron, black iron oxide and magnesium ribbon were found in the home.

Also found was literature on how to build “dirty bombs” and information about cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60, radioactive materials. The FBI report also stated there was evidence linking James Cummings to white supremacist groups.....She [Amber Cummings, his wife] also said that Cummings was “very upset” when Barack Obama was elected president.

A “dirty bomb” is a type of “radiological dispersal device” that combines a conventional explosive such as dynamite with radioactive material, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Web site....The report noted that “uranium, thorium, cesium-137, stontium-90 and cobalt-60 are radioactive isotopes and 35 percent hydrogen peroxide is a necessary precursor for the manufacture of peroxide-based explosives. Lithium metal, thermite and aluminum are materials used to sensitize and amplify the effects of explosives.”
MikeNY, as a law enforcement officer, surely you do see this as a big deal, don't you?

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

Mr. Cummings, an ardent admirer of Hitler, applied to join the National Socialist Movement (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=617) (NSM), an American Nazi group, just before Amber murdered him.

Here's some of what the National Socialist Movement says on its website (http://www.nsm88.org/whatisns/whatisns.html):
National Socialism deplores the reversal of human evolution being accelerated by welfare-ism, brotherhood-ism, race-mixing and the unlimited breeding of the inferior races and individuals while the superior limit themselves to few offspring or none......
This is the old "the Negroes" or "the Mexicans" or in past times "the Irish" are out-breeding us (white European Americans) and we ought to do something about it. It's easy to see folks like that wanting to see Obama dead.

I'm sure you see this view as being un-American, right?
To accomplish these utterly fundamental and vital aims, National Socialism declares its goal to be nothing less than the absolute domination of the white, civilized areas of the earth by the Aryan white man and the leadership of the Aryan white man by the strongest and wisest individuals of the race rather than the largest number of weaklings, mediocrity's and selfish private interests........
Guys with radiation bombs with these views in the nation's capital with terrorist intent should scare the heck out of all right-thinking Americans, right?
Finally, we declare our intention of exiling all individuals, OF WHATEVER RACE, who are guilty of organizing, planning, or carrying out the criminal Communist conspiracy and mutiny against humanity and the laws of nature. We recognize a great proportion of Jews have been, and are the leaders of this criminal Bolshevik mutiny and conspiracy against the race of humanity and will not shrink from the task of utterly destroying such poisonous human bacteria.
Destroying "such poisonous human bacteria"!

Fair disclosure:
As a mixed-race American with leftist views, I'd be one of those "poisonous human bacteria" marked for "extermination." Excuse the personal aside, but that stuff both frightens and enrages me. No doubt, these people also view Obama as a human bacterium. Despite the wide political differences I have with Obama, we apparently would be gas-chamber mates.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

MikeNY, don't you think a story about a Nazi terrorist assembling a radiation bomb, plotting a terrorist attack at a rally of 2 million in the nation's capital should be front and center?

And just why do you think this story has been neglected? Race? Money? National security? Incompetence?

As I said, I don't have the answers myself, but I sure have some questions.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent

Free

03-14-2009, 08:28 AM

Wow Alan!!

I will try to address some of this gingerly, as I can see now where your emotional investment is.

First, this story could very well be manufactured, or at least embellished by the killer wife. So, we really don't know if any of this is true, and since he is dead, he has no way of defending himself. I strongly suspect that there is a little truth in this, but the Wife created a dramatic story out of it to compensate for her crime. One has to ask, why didn't she just walk away, and inform the police of his actions?

Secondly, I completely disagree that only the successful have a political party, and representatives in Washington. If that were the case, we would not have the progressive tax system, welfare, Barney, Nancy, and most of the Democratic party. Obama would not have been elected on the promise of re-distributing wealth, and other class warfare pledges. If anything, as you have pointed out in some of your other posts, the tide has turned, and it is highly unpopular to be sucsessful in this country, and the trend is towards forced financial equality and mediocraty.

I really wanted to stay out of this, but you have made it so difficult to ignore!! :shut-mouth:

Alan_OldStudent

03-14-2009, 09:43 PM

Hi Free,

I will try to address some of this gingerly, as I can see now where your emotional investment is.

Free, the entire tone of your post is entirely civil. Like you, I hope my response is not inflammatory.

First, this story could very well be manufactured, or at least embellished by the killer wife.

According to the wife, Amber Cummings, she suffered years of sexual, physical, and mental abuse.

I think Amber's story of abuse may well be true, and if so, that might have much to do with her unquestioned murder of Mr. Cummings.

I don't believe Mr. Cummings' politics or plotting had anything to do why Amber murdered him. She does not appear to claim his terrorist activities or pro-Nazi leanings had anything to do with it.

You speculate she could have embellished her account of Mr Cummings' personality and activities. Of course she could have. She doesn't sound too stable to me. Years of abuse is bad for one's mental health.

You also speculate that she may have just manufactured this connection between Mr. Cummings and a terrorist plot.

Not according to official investigative reports. The FBI and police say they found bomb-making materials, had evidence of the plot, Mr. Cummings pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi views, his application for membership in in the National Socialist Movement (NSM).

You can read about it on page 11 of this PDF of the official FBI investigative report (http://file.sunshinepress.org:54445/dc-sec-08-0116.pdf). Here are a few sentences from this report.
9 December 2008 Discovery of Radiological Dispersal Device
Components, Literature, and Radioactive Material at the Maine Residence of an Identified Deceased US Person
On 9 December 2008, radiological dispersal device components and literature, and radioactive materials, were discovered at the Maine residence of an identified deceased USPER James Cummings. Cummings had possible ties to white supremacist groups.
On 9 December 2008, four one-gallon containers of 35 percent hydrogen peroxide, lithium metal, thermite, aluminum powder, beryllium, boron, black iron oxide, and magnesium ribbon were discovered at the Cummings' residence. (FBI comments: Literature on constructing 'dirty bombs'; information referring to cesium-137, strontium-90, and cobalt-60; and possible evidence linking James ((Cummings)) to white supremacist groups were also discovered.)
Moreover, the Security Management (http://www.securitymanagement.com/)'s web site, which is sponsored by ASIS International (http://www.asisonline.org/about/history/index.xml), gives credence to the account in this article. One would be hard pressed to show that ASIS International (the ASIS stands for American Society for Industrial Security) is some kind of liberal advocacy group.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide.gif

Secondly, I completely disagree that only the successful have a political party, and representatives in Washington. If that were the case, we would not have the progressive tax system, welfare, Barney, Nancy, and most of the Democratic party.

True, Free. We disagree on the nature of the Democratic Party.

I do not think that the Democratic Party is a party that represents the interests of the wage-working class, the unemployed, minorities, etc.

Rather, the Democratic Party represents the political coalition of several sections or factions of our corporate rulers, and they don't always rest to easily with each other, either.

It is true that many people, including many minorities and wage workers, believe the Democrats when they claim they put our interests first.

But really, we are not their main constituency. Their main concern right now is to ensure the survival of the rule of the corporations, the survival of capitalism, and the world-wide market. People like you debate the wisdom of their means to accomplish this.

But to assume those who support a more interventionist approach to market capitalism than you do are its enemies is perhaps, with all due respect to you personally, simplistic. The real world is usually much more complex than an simple theoretical schema, no matter how elegant. Such schemas really are doctrinaire and dogmatic, not based on reality.

However, I do agree with you that the Democrats support income redistribution.

They want to take money wage earners pay in taxes and give it to the same corporate rulers, like AIG and Bank of America, who 1 year ago were saying that government spending is the problem. That type of income redistribution, taking money from wage-workers to give to capitalists, is reprehensible, but it's not socialism.

That, my friend, is capitalist income redistribution.

Right today, there is a big story in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401394.html?hpid=topnews) about how AIG is paying millions in bonuses to their top management despite having received billions in bailout funds. And the AIG management have the audacity to defend this. Their excuse? They need to honor their contracts with these valuable executives or they might lose them to "the competition," as if the competition wants to hire the people who ran AIG into the ground. These corporate rulers think we're stupid enough to buy that, or they hope the Democratic Party will sugar-coat it enough to ram it down our throats.

The Democrats and liberal politicians will whine, cry, and wring their hands over this mean bit of political theater. Nevertheless, pretty soon they'll be telling us wage-earners (their purported constituancy) that "we" need to fork over more money to the plutocratic rulers in order to avoid even more pain.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

Free, not all supporters of capitalism think that the laizzes faire approach you seem to favor is the one true way to success of capitalism. And not all those who favor some kind of controls are the enemy of capitalism. When one looks at how the Democratic Party is trying to bail out capitalists and recue the market, it's not easy to say this provides proof that they're a bunch of subversives.

The Financial Times of London (http://www.ft.com/aboutus), hardly a bastion of Bolshevism or even socialism, ran an editorial called "Seeds Of Its Own Destruction" (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6c5bd36-0c0c-11de-b87d-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=ae1104cc-f82e-11dd-aae8-000077b07658.html).

You should check that editorial out, Free. Financial Times of London are also running a series of articles called The Future Of Capitalism (http://www.ft.com/indepth/capitalism-future). Clicking the above link will take you to the gateway page of this very pro-capitalist and scholarly website for these articles.

Forgive the length of my quotes, but in the above-cited editorial, Seeds Of Its Own Destruction (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6c5bd36-0c0c-11de-b87d-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=ae1104cc-f82e-11dd-aae8-000077b07658.html), one may find the following comments, which I think illustrate the capitalist conundrum from the point of view of actual practicing capitalists:
Another ideological god has failed. The assumptions that ruled policy and politics over three decades suddenly look as outdated as revolutionary socialism.

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Thus quipped Ronald Reagan, hero of US conservatism. The remark seems ancient history now that governments are pouring trillions of dollars, euros and pounds into financial systems.

“Governments bad; deregulated markets good”: how can this faith escape unscathed after Alan Greenspan, pupil of Ayn Rand and predominant central banker of the era, described himself, in congressional testimony last October, as being “in a state of shocked disbelief” over the failure of the “self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity”?

In the west, the pro-market ideology of the past three decades was a reaction to the perceived failure of the mixed-economy, Keynesian model of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The move to the market was associated with the election of Reagan as US president in 1980 and the ascent to the British prime ministership of Margaret Thatcher the year before. Little less important was the role of Paul Volcker, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, in crushing inflation.

Yet bigger events shaped this epoch: the shift of China from the plan to the market under Deng Xiaoping, the collapse of Soviet communism between 1989 and 1991 and the end of India’s inward-looking economic policies after 1991. The death of central planning, the end of the cold war and, above all, the entry of billions of new participants into the rapidly globalising world economy were the high points of this era.

Today, with a huge global financial crisis and a synchronised slump in economic activity, the world is changing again. The financial system is the brain of the market economy. If it needs so expensive a rescue, what is left of Reagan’s dismissal of governments? If the financial system has failed, what remains of confidence in markets?

My Brother Free, thanks for your respectful post. I hope I have provided another way of looking at this earth-shaking crisis.

Best regards,

Alan OldStudent

Free

03-14-2009, 10:14 PM

Interesting post Alan, but unfortunately I can't agree with you. I don't condone what AIG or similar companies have done, but none of this represents true capitalism, which works very well, when government is not involved. Interesting, that if someone focuses on, say a race based criminal element in society, as a representation of that whole race, it is wrong to do so, but focusing on a few bad corporate apples, and extrapolating it to the millions of other companies, is quite a popular, and accepted thing to do right now.

Also, since you just seem to want to ignore the other side of wealth re-distribution, what has been promised to those voters who want other peoples money, and is carried out by the increases in taxes on the successful, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. You have articulately expressed an alternative perspective, however it is not one I can perceive as accurate in my experience.

Alan_OldStudent

03-14-2009, 10:48 PM

Free

03-15-2009, 08:05 AM

Thanks Alan, I appreciate your courtesy as well. Let me just say one more thing, that I wish I had articulated above. That is that Capitalism died long ago, and all these articles, and people who are arguing that Capitalism doesn't work, are arguing against a system that is something else entirely. I won't say what it is, because I don't want to get in to a semantics debate, and it probably can't be defined anyway, as it is really some sort of mutant hybrid.:alien:

The government has been pulling the wings off birds for years and years, and now people are saying birds can't fly... well why are they surprised. Government has always been the problem, and it always will be the problem. We are so far from what our founding fathers envisioned for this country, it is really tragic, to those of us who really love the USA. :flag:

Unfortunately, it has happened gradually, and the people have been changed, generation by generation along with the government. I look at some of these elected officials and scratch my head and really wonder how such people could get elected, but I think I understand now. They really do reflect the people, and the current state of this generation. I, along with others here, just happen to be in the minority, and it appears to be a one way flight.

Dang, Alan, you really have a way of sucking me back into these discussions!! I feel like an Alchoholic that has just fallen off the wagon. :liquor::messed:

Alan_OldStudent

03-15-2009, 02:05 PM

Hi Free,

You wrote:Thanks Alan, I appreciate your courtesy as well. Let me just say one more thing, that I wish I had articulated above. That is that Capitalism died long ago, and all these articles, and people who are arguing that Capitalism doesn't work, are arguing against a system that is something else entirely. ......

The government has been pulling the wings off birds for years and years, and now people are saying birds can't fly... well why are they surprised. Government has always been the problem, and it always will be the problem. ......

Yes, I gathered from other posts that you feel that there is a "pure" form of capitalism that existed but has become subverted through some slow process.

Would you please tell me where that pure form of capitalism existed? What does "pure" capitalism mean to you? Would I be correct in assuming your views are similar to Ayn Rand and perhaps the Libertarian Party?

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

......We are so far from what our founding fathers envisioned for this country, it is really tragic, to those of us who really love the USA. :flag:

You know, Free, when the founding fathers started the United States, they actually scrapped the original plan, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html) of 1781, and replaced it with The Constitution of the United States (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html) of 1787.

We tend to concentrate on the ideals of the liberal ideals (in the 17th and 18th century meaning of the term (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O46-liberalism.html)) of the founding fathers, ideals derived from the Era of Enlightenment and the philosophies of John Locke and others.

However, there is far more to "what our founding fathers envisioned for this country" (to use your words) than this usual schoolbook narrative.

For example, the individual states under the original constitution of 1787:
Permitted only white men who had a certain amount of property to vote (http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-8-1-b.html).
Did not permit women to vote.
Did not allow American citizens to choose their senators (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm) in a direct election.
Had no provision for Americans to cast a vote for either the president or members of the electoral college (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php).

Moreover, the founding fathers, despite the misgivings of some of them, permitted the institution (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/040112/12slave.htm) of slavery and profited from it. They ensured the political dominance of the slavocracy by apportioning extra representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise) to the slave-holding states with the so-called "Three-fifths compromise." The economic infrastructure of early America rested in large part on value extracted from slave labor. Much of the territory of the United States came about from genocidal campaigns against the aboriginal inhabitants.

So the vision of the founding fathers is not purely idealistic or entirely virtuous. It is much more human, much messier than that, and it has to be judged by the mores and practices of the time.

The progressive aspects of the founding fathers' vision need to be treasured and preserved, if expanded. The idea that the state should derive its legitimacy from the consent of the governed should be extended beyond 1787, as it has been, to include the right of women and minorities to vote. The right to freedom of conscience, religion, free speech, assembly, etc need to be defended.

And those aspects of the founding father's vision that legitimate slavery, wars of conquest to gain territory and empire (Indian wars, Mexican-American war, Spanish war, conquest of the Philippines, etc), "manifest destiny," and so on need to be abandoned.

Dang, Alan, you really have a way of sucking me back into these discussions!! I feel like an Alchoholic that has just fallen off the wagon. :liquor::messed:

Look at it this way, Free,

Lots of people are reading this thread and thinking about these issues. Probably few of them agree 100% with what either one of us say. But they must find what we are saying interesting. It helps them, perhaps, clarify their own viewpoint.

You're doing an excellent job of expressing yourself and the issues as you see them. You're not fulminating, name-calling, red-baiting. Instead, you're doing your best to address the issues as objectively and respectfully as possible.

I can't believe that other readers are not benefiting from seeing what you, Gordon, MikeNY, I, and others think about these issues.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent

Free

03-15-2009, 06:17 PM

The progressive aspects of the founding fathers' vision need to be treasured and preserved, if expanded. The idea that the state should derive its legitimacy from the consent of the governed should be extended beyond 1787, as it has been, to include the right of women and minorities to vote. The right to freedom of conscience, religion, free speech, assembly, etc need to be defended.

And those aspects of the founding father's vision that legitimate slavery, wars of conquest to gain territory and empire (Indian wars, Mexican-American war, Spanish war, conquest of the Philippines, etc), "manifest destiny," and so on need to be abandoned.

Alan, this is well stated, and I agree wholeheartedly with it. I agree that there is probably a general concept of what the founding fathers wanted for this country, that seems to me is reflected most closely in the tenants of the Libertarian party, and, if I had to affiliate with any party, that would be my choice. Before you direct me to some dictionary definition of a "Libertarian" I will just say that I do not take on that label blindly either.

The same goes for Ayn Rand. I would say that on some levels, I do agree with much of what she puts forth, however, on other levels I disagree completely. In reading through the principals of Objectivism, I was struck by how logical, and intellectually based her principles were, and I would be interested in your views on them, since you certainly put a very high value on the development of a very logical and intellectual faculty.

MikeNY

03-15-2009, 07:18 PM

Alan that was not under estimating what the Nazi Swine was planning, I was agreeing with you he was plotting a Terrorist Action; and agreeing with you and free about the wife too.

I might be mistaken but Jose Padilla is Hispanic not Black and I've seen his pictures in New Stories and magazines as well as the Internet, to me the vast majority of Hispanics are White, and there are Black and Mixed-Race Hispanics.

Your right there was slavery in the USA and some of the rich made money off of slavery, not all Southerner's owned slaves, most Southerner's were poor. If you read "Roll Jordan Roll" you see that the slaves were considered persons of value, unlike the poor workers in the South and North that were considered subhuman trash. Slavery did not end with the Civil War; Europeans were brought to the USA to work in Mines, Factories and fields. Workers were required to pay to live in Company Housing, shop in the Company owned Store and seek medical attention with the Company Medical Doctor. The US was not built on the backs of the slaves, they suffered but you have minimized the suffering they had and the wealth built on thier backs as they were exploitied in a slave like existiance enforced on European Workers that worked in the farm fields, Plantations, Mines, Factories as virtual slaves from the beginning of the USA.

I would not have known you were Mixed race Alan from the picture, I suspect you mean Mixed European. I consider myself Italian and am culturaly; but the family is mixed Southern European/Balkans and Middle Eastern and I look very ethnic and am mistaken for a Arab, Persian or Mexican. I was born a Second Class Citizen in New York. When I was a boy; Italians were not allowed to work on Wall Street or Major Corporations, nor live in Exclusive areas (with covenants in the deeds baring them from ownership) nor attend good Colleges and Universities, but Blacks always could from long before my Great Gandpa came to New York around 1880.

Alan_OldStudent

03-16-2009, 12:50 AM

Hi Mike,

About Slavery
I do not wish to minimize the suffering of poor whites in the south during the 18th and 19th centuries.

But really, it was originally tobacco, indigo, and rice that were the mainstays of American agriculture, mostly slave labor and mostly in the south.

But then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin (http://www.invent.org/Hall_Of_Fame/152.html) in 1793. Cotton had been extremely expensive before this and suddenly became quite cheap. This, along with the invention of the spinning frame by Richard Arkwright in 1768 and Samuel Slater's establishment in 1790 of the (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blspinningframe.htm) Pawtucket, Rhode Island spinning mill, based on Arkwright's design, spurred the dramatic growth of cotton plantations, along with a huge increase in slavery. Cotton production and processing kicked off the industrial revolution and was a major factor in it.

As a matter of fact, southern plantations actually produced three quarters of the world's cotton (http://www.answers.com/topic/king-cotton#History) in the years just before the American civil war. They used to brag about "King Cotton." (http://www.civilwarhome.com/kingcotton.htm)

Although small landholders produced a part of the crop, it was really the huge cotton plantations in places like Mississippi and other southern states that enabled this incredible production and its resultant accumulation of wealth.

Really, slavery was a major source of capital accumulation until the civil war. Slavery-derived capital accumulation permitted the westward expansion, the railroads, the big financial houses of the north, and northern manufacturing, as well as the establishment of Monroe's federal bank and the retirement of the revolutionary war public debts.

About Jose Padilla
Jose Padilla is the son of Puerto Ricans, and as you know, many of them are of African-American descent. Hitler decreed the Japanese were "Honorary Aryans," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan) and so you might want to consider Mr. Padilla to be an honorary white with the same amount of justification.

It's up to you to do so if you desire.

Here is his picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla.jpg

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

About My Ethnicity
I usually don't go into the subject of my ethnicity much. However, you seem to question my statement about being mixed race. So I offer this explanation. Perhaps it is of interest, perhaps not.

The European bearers of my surname have been here for 10 generations. The first to come here were a couple of brothers, stonemasons, from England, and they came in 1690 or thereabouts. They fought in every major war of this country, including the American Revolution of 1776.

My Black Seminole (http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/library/News/seminoles2.html) ancestry is a bit murkier. The Creek and Cherokee components probably have been here for 30,000 years. The African component has undoubtedly been here longer than the majority of European-American's ancestors. Exact records are difficult to come by. But I believe they were brought over early on and escaped into the Florida Everglades to become part of the indigenous bands.

My mother's father came from that Black Seminole branch. His father was a wealthy white man, and his mother was a poor Black Seminole. She definitely looked African-American. Thus, in the days when New York had legal definitions of a person's race, (where my grandfather had a business), he was legally defined as a "Negro" person, although he had an American-Indian appearance and his father's gray eyes. He sometimes could pass for white but did not feel right doing that. So he stopped trying, despite the economic and professional advantages being white would afford a man in the early 20th century. He was a lawyer, a businessman and entrepeneur, politically pretty left, and an accomplished classical, jazz, and ragtime piano player, had traveled the world, spoke four or five languages fluently, and had an amazing deep and resonant speaking voice.

His brother, my great uncle, was a well-known member of the African-American community in New Jersey. I visited him there, and he proudly took me around and introduced me to a lot of people in the community.

My mother's maternal side had pronounced African-American appearance and were from Louisiana and Texas. Their ethnic background is a bit mysterious, although certainly multiracial. They had been in Louisiana for perhaps centuries. My mother's grandmother was called "Mamman" by the family. She was from Louisiana. She looked very African-American and spoke Louisiana French Patois and English. She may have known Spanish too, but I don't recall now. I believe "Mamman" is a Patois term of honor for a family matriarch. When I met her, her hair was very white, pretty short, and very nappy.

My mother had straight black hair during most of her life until it became gray-white and she cut it. She had olive-colored skin, very dark brown eyes, and many thought she was either Mexican or Native American.

I came out with a light-olive complexion, and like you, most people assume I'm white when they first meet me. When I speak to Mexicans in Spanish, they are often puzzled, because my Spanish does not have an English-language accent and I'm fairly fluent. In fact, my Spanish accent sounds pretty Mexican. Yet I do not have that swarthy look that Mexicans call "Bronce." I have light-olive complexion, brown eyes, and a snow-white full beard.

So they always wonder where I'm from.

On occasion, people who hear me speak English detect a bit of a Spanish accent, but personally I don't see it. My English is much better than my Spanish.

I was born at the end of the last great depression and grew up in the 1940s and 1950s in an area heavily populated by Spanish speakers. I learned Spanish at quite a young age. Part of my family live in Mexico. Many of my cousins were born there and have Spanish as their first language. Most of the rest of us speak Spanish pretty passably as a second language.

I first became aware of being mixed race as a boy when a bunch of relatives from out of state visited our home during a Christmas holiday. Some of those relatives looked definitely African-American. The next-door neighbor boy, who had been my brother's best friend, told us he was not allowed to play with "your people." The next day, he hurled racebaiting words and a few stones across the fence at us, and my brother, an extremely peaceful person, lost his temper, vaulted the fence, and beat him up.

Before then, I did not think much about race. Since then, I've never really felt "white," although in terms of opportunity and social acceptance, I have certainly benefited from looking white.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide2.gif

So, MikeNY, I consider myself a full-blooded member of the human race, privileged to be a loyal citizen of the world, blessed with the advantage of being able to live on our beautiful mother earth, and proud to be a part of the American heritage and story.

Like you, MikeNY, my ancestors wandered out of the African alluvial plains around 160,000 years ago, crossed icy plains filled with glaciers, hunted mastedons and befriended horses, camels, cats, and dogs, created settlements by the sides of rivers and started what became world trade, invented agriculture and writing, wrote great books, sailed the world's oceans to unknown and terrifyingly strange lands though dreadfully afraid of unknown perils, crossed impossible mountain barriers, composed great literature and poetry to celebrate all that, and now have the capacity to either destroy the world or just perhaps, I hope, create it anew instead.

That, MikeNY, is my ethnicity and racial background, which I share with you.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent

Free

03-16-2009, 07:55 AM

Wow Alan!! That is quite a story. Just out of curiosity, are you a writer, or a teacher? What was, or is your profession? (if it is not too personal to ask). If you haven't, you really should write some books.

MikeNY

03-16-2009, 09:01 AM

Free: Alan is a good writer, no doubt.

Dredging up the Nazi's considering the Japanese as honorary Aryan's is below you Alan.

Alan here is a picture of Jose Padilla both with and without turban and tan http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://mwcnews.net/images/stories/Personalities2/Jose-Padilla.jpg&imgrefurl=http://mwcnews.net/content/view/2543/26/&usg=__qHqcQVw1h2PrfUVEjBT4qUOVxY0=&h=278&w=370&sz=17&hl=en&start=64&um=1&tbnid=SojZ6XMI3FY9PM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJose%2BPadilla%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den% 26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7ADBF%26sa%3DN%26start%3D54%26 um%3D1 Read that Jose Padilla is the son of Puerto Rican immigrants but although he gets a great tan he does appear White. My friend is a Seminole and has blonde hair. Not all Puerto Ricans are mixed race; some are Mestizo, White, Black and Mixed.

Alan when I was born in New York the nurse asked my mother if she should register my birth as a Negro like my father; or as White like mom; mother replied that Dad was Italian and the nurse said that was understood.

PS Alan noticed you don't dispute the facts of past discrimination, just avoided referrence. Smart.

gruntbrain

03-16-2009, 10:28 AM

I enjoy high minded exchanges & believe that such point/counerpoint discussions should be extended into a book( ebook or printed). Most of us are prisoners of ideology & don't read the "other guys" . A Free/Alan book would be enlightening. The point/counerpoint format gets some radio/tv airtime but is highly constrained so a book would fill this gap.
A discussion of GOD may be the ultimate issue; I'd like to read a lively debate between Dennis Prager & Christopher Hinchens

MikeNY

03-16-2009, 01:57 PM

I want a job as the go-for on the Alan & Free TV Hour :). You guys would be great on TV, the New Crossfire!

Alan_OldStudent

03-16-2009, 07:02 PM

Andy62

03-16-2009, 09:54 PM

This has been a very interesting discussion. I was aware of the historical points that have been made. When judging everything I believe that you have to be aware of both the environment and time period in which events happen. The genius of the founders of the United States in my opinion was the flexibility of the Government that they created and it's ability to change. As Bill Clinton says ,"America is an idea."

Alan_OldStudent

03-16-2009, 10:52 PM

Hi Gruntbrain,

Thanks for the kind words.

And yes, I'm proud of the way Free has conducted himself in this discussion. He has conducted himself like the true gentleman that he is.

I don't know what Free's religious views are, but I am assuming he believes in God. As an atheist, I find it rather pointless to try to convince anyone to abandon their belief in God. I don't think God's existence can be proven or disproved. It's really more an article of faith than anything else.

Perhaps I covered this in the old forum, but here's a quote from both the Bible and Marx on faith and religion:

Hebrews 11:1 says:Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Marx famously says: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/law-abs.htm)
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and also the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people. (emphasis in original). (Opium at that time was used as part of an herbal medical concoction to cure headaches, runny nose, GI upset, and sleeplessness, and in many patent medicines)

I find myself in agreement with both the Bible and Marx on this one.

Many are those who have fought for social justice and decency under the banner of religion, waving the flag of hope for the yet-unseen, shouting the battle-cry of protest against the heartlessness and distress of the world.

Some better known examples include Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammed, Buddha, Zoroaster, the 10 Gurus of Sikhism, and others.

Likewise, many crimes have been committed under the banner of religion.

But most religious people are fundamentally decent and seek to do good. As belief in God's existence is an important support for the good they do. So what would be the point of shattering their belief system. For those of us who are atheists, it is better by far to help make this world a decent place for all.

And rather than attacking the religious fig leaf that the bin Laden's of this world wear, why not take on the real issues that are lurking just beneath the religious veneer? We don't attack Uganda's "MOVEMENT FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF GOD" (http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_rest.htm) or Lord's Resistance Army (http://www.alertnet.org/db/crisisprofiles/UG_VIO.htm?v=in_detail) because their stated purpose is to restore the 10 Commandments. We oppose them for their crimes and terrorist activities. And we don't attack Michael Bray and the Army of God (http://terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/p/MichaelBray.htm) because they are Christians and believe that personhood starts at conception. We attack them for their terrorist bombings of clinics and we attack their un-American program to make this country a theocracy.

Besides, I don't believe the existence of God can be proven or disproven through rational argument or science, so such argument tend to lead to a destructive emotionalism and irrationality.

A person's religion or lack of religion should be left as a matter of private conscience. Bickering over God's existence is not going to either prove or disprove who's right or wrong.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent

April

03-17-2009, 02:09 AM

Just wanted to make a few comments.

First of all, this thread has been a thoroughly enjoyable read. Free, I am glad Alan was able to suck you back in to these discussions. You, Alan, MikeNY, and the others all have valid points that are worthy of consideration. Personally, I am learning a lot from your discussions.

Alan, what a fascinating ethnic background you have.

My mother gave me a book called 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. Perhaps this is too far back to be relevant to this discussion, except for Alan's reference to the aboriginal peoples of America. In any case, my husband, a history buff, has been reading this book and said it is the most interesting book he has ever read.

Question: Making money so often involves the exploitation of someone else. Today, countries like China are the new "slaves" of America, as the workers in such countries earn a pittance for the goods they produce for American consumption. The middle-men hike the price way up and take a big cut from what I can tell, making something that costs probably nothing to make due to cheap labor, an expensive item on the American market. I have read articles about beautiful rugs that take a whole family a year to make in some poor country, and then they are paid hardly enough to buy simple food for basic sustinance. Is this the "American way"? It seems that the "slavery" has only become more sophisticated. I used to look at beautiful sweaters in the stores that had tags that read, "Hand knit in (where-ever)". I would wonder how much of the $100, or whatever the inflated price was, actually got to the poor woman who probably spent many hours/days knitting that lovely piece. Probably not much got to her.

As far as Alan's comparison of religion to athiests, perhaps they are opposites, I don't know. I personally abhore religion. And when religion is used for social causes, I think it is off course. I've never been one for getting caught up in some big organization, or an organization of any size. For me, the important thing is relationships. If the organization is the catalyst or the vehicle that encourages and nourishes relationships between individuals with each other and/or with God, in a religious sense, then the organization is valid. When the organization exists simply for it's own sake and to promote itself, then I question its worth. I am not interested in religion. Perhaps I have come across as some kind of religious nut on this forum, but the truth is that whatever I had said is because that is what has been/is real to me. I appreciate being able to share here, and I respect other people's points of view. God has been real to me and so I've shared a few things I feel He has shown me. He doesn't "speak" to me often, so mostly I live my life trying to figure out the best way to get along with the people in my life, and trying to discern if anything that is happening in my life has any spiritual significance.

Anyway, thanks to those who have been participating in this lively discussion. I actually think that a book written as a series of various people's responses and answers on a given topic, as we have here on this forum, would be a very original and most engaging book.

gruntbrain

03-17-2009, 06:42 AM

Alan
My reference to a debate between Prager & Hinchens was not an attmept to create a Alan/Free debate on God. Their brief dicussion/debate on radio could be expanded & presented in a book. More generally, the point/counterpoint format is desirable on many subjects but is rarely witnessed . Desparately seeking & confused souls wanna hear both sides on many subjects.

Free

03-17-2009, 08:53 AM

First of all Alan, thank you once again for your kind words. Secondly, although I have avoided this for quite some time I feel I must respond since there is speculation about my belief in God. And I think my answer may surprise some of you, and shatter the hopes for a point counterpoint debate. :wink:

Basically, I agree with Alan on God, although I don't like to label myself as Atheist, or Agnostic, or any other term. I believe that what appears and disappears is not real, and what is always present is the one and only Truth.

This is not a concept, or a belief, but a directly experiential presence, that is common to all. Some may call that presence God, but that to me is a concept that comes and goes in the mind, is constantly changing, and open to billions of interpretations. It also externalizes, and conceptualizes what is the direct, universal, and quite ordinary personal reality of all beings.

What I am talking about is the presence of being, that is prior to every thought, and exists between every thought. It is not an object, but rather what is aware of all objects, and contains them. It is permanent, never changes, can not be described, or contained in our limited language, but can only be pointed to. It is what is present in waking consciousness, whether thought filled, or relatively thought free meditation, and present in dreaming, or dreamless sleep. The closest pointer is the words "I Am" as it is the sense of being, existence prior to the though I am this or that, and is our own personal being, as well as the universal being of all as an un-divided whole. It is the one thing (or no-thing) we all have in common.

Like Alan, I feel that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, and for me, it really doesn't matter. Words are basically useless when it comes to describing what is real. They excel in describing what is unreal, constantly changing, open for interpretation, and impermanent. To me, it is fun talking about all these things, debating points of view, whether it be politics, or religion etc. etc. But what really matters to me, is that permanent presence, that is here in every moment, between every thought, was never born, and will never die. It is from that I draw my strength, and in that which I find my identity, my reality, and my truth.

gruntbrain

03-17-2009, 09:17 AM

Witnessing a high minded point/counerpoint is educational even if one does not come away with a definitive answer; the GOD discussion would not likely change one's beliefs & many would remain "agnostic" .

In general, examing materials from the "other side" is a good thing.

Alan_OldStudent

03-17-2009, 12:07 PM

.....although I have avoided this for quite some time I feel I must respond since there is speculation about my belief in God. And I think my answer may surprise some of you, and shatter the hopes for a point counterpoint debate. :wink:.......

Hi Free,

Very interesting observations.

Thanks for sharing your beautifully-stated opinion.

A further reason for my hesitating to debate God, in addition to all the previously-stated reasons.

Many, and maybe even most, forum members here are Christians, and JP is an evangelical Christian. Although not a believer myself, I respect their opinions. I would not want to cause them to feel disrespected or denigrated. It has been enough that I state my position clearly.

No Christian here has ever thrown stones at me for my atheism, and I have no wish to throw stones at our Christian brothers and sisters. Our Christian brothers and sisters have basically made me feel welcome, starting with John Peterson himself.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent

MikeNY

03-17-2009, 02:47 PM

Must confess that I'm a Christian (in the Catholic Church) but have found many Athiests, Agnostics and Witchs that are in behavior model Christians; same for the other Christians in various denominations. Have been lucky enough to meet a Baptist Minister (that might be a saint) as well wonderful folks that are Mormons, SDAs, JWs, various Protestant and Evangelicals; and include Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddists too. The funny thing about life is how many truly nice people there are.

Andy62

03-17-2009, 03:53 PM

I am a non-denominational Christian,but during my college years I was an athiest. I agree with Jesus that the kingdom of God is within and not in some external organization.

gruntbrain

03-17-2009, 04:29 PM

Although I mentioned a God debate, I realize that this forum is not the place for such a debate; my preference is reading a book that represents multiple perspectives. More generally I'd like a series of point/countepoint discussions on many topics as chapters in a single book. Any such book?

Alan_OldStudent

03-17-2009, 08:22 PM

Hi Grunt,

Alan
My reference to a debate between Prager & Hinchens was not an attmept to create a Alan/Free debate on God.
Yeah, I realize that now. My mistake.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

.....the point/counterpoint format is desirable on many subjects but is rarely witnessed . Desparately seeking & confused souls wanna hear both sides on many subjects.

I quite agree. That type of intelligent debate is sorely missing, and it is a tragedy. None of us have all the answers. Additionally, we can all learn from each other if we just give an honest listen.

Socrates used what has been called the dialectic method of debate, as have many other serious thinkers. Here is an interesting article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectics) on that approach, tracing it through Hindu, Buddhist, Socratic, Medieval, Hegelian, Marxist, and Talmudic intellectual traditions.

St. Thomas Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas), one of the major medieval philosophers, used this method quite a bit in his works.

St. Thomas read and studied the classical philosophers of Greece and Rome, whose works the Spanish Muslims had previously rescued from the bonfires of earlier Christian censors.

The Muslims controlled Spain, which at that time was the intellectual center of Europe, with its great universities. In fact, over half of the students in the Muslim universities of Spain were European Christians, most of them clergy.

The Muslims of Spain also encouraged intellectual scholarship, and there were many famous Jewish and Muslim commentaries on the old classical learning. Actually, it was the Muslim Spanish intellectual establishment and scholarship that made the European renaissance and later the Enlightenment possible.

So St. Thomas read not only the ancient Greek and Roman commentaries, but also the major Jewish and Muslim scholars.

In his masterwork, Summa Theologica (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.html), St. Thomas sought to use this material to illustrate and explain his philosophy and theology.

This is the fascinating part:

St. Thomas always began each section with a 1- or 2-sentence statement of his position.

Then, under a series of points titled: OBJECTION, he stated in the strongest possible way, and in the most objective and fair way he could, the position of his opponent. It was as though he was trying to make their argument as well or even better than they themselves. It was obvious how much he respected the character and arguments of his opponents and how fairly he tried to treat them.

He then would begin his attempt at a refutation.

His treatise on the existence and nature of God (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.toc.html) is the starting point for almost all subsequent debates around God's existence, and those who have debated this since have been forced to deal with Aquinas's must-read arguments (which, by the way, I do not buy, although I have great respect for Aquinas as an important thinker).

For an interesting and brief explanation and critique of Aquinas's arguments, one can read the text of Bertrand Russell's short essay online called Why I Am Not A Christian (http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html).

So Grunt, there is an interesting point-counterpoint on this question from two great minds out of the Western philosophical tradition for you to look at. Have fun!

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

For those of us with radical and non-mainstream views, if we wish to discuss or debate our point of view, we need to learn a lesson from Aquinas.

We need to be dialectic in our approach. We need to understand and be able to state clearly the opponent's view. Indeed, we must make our formulation as convincing or even more convincing that the opponent himself could do.

Of course, doing that is risky, because we might (horror of horrors) find we need to modify our position or even find that we ourselves have been wrong.

Nevertheless, if we are to engage in real dialog instead of ego-stroking spitball fights, we must be brave and take the risk. Only if we ourselves are willing to take the risk can we hope those we argue against will do the same.

Then we must frame our argument as honestly as we can, addressing the relevant points as we see them.

Note that this requires the greatest trick in the debator's arsenal, the tactic of respectful listening. Those with confidence in their position will not shrink from this duty.

Our opponent will be less likely to attack us personally if he sees we are trying to understand where he is coming from in an honest fashion.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent

MikeNY

03-17-2009, 09:13 PM

As a kid our dad punished us using the Socratic method, you had to lay on your bed after being bad, no books, comics, radio or TV, no toys. Think about what you did, then make a confession and tell how you'd change. I hated it lol!

Alan stated: "St. Thomas read and studied the classical philosophers of Greece and Rome, whose works the Spanish Muslims had previously rescued from the bonfires of earlier Christian censors.

The Muslims controlled Spain, which at that time was the intellectual center of Europe, with its great universities. In fact, over half of the students in the Muslim universities of Spain were European Christians, most of them clergy.

The Muslims of Spain also encouraged intellectual scholarship, and there were many famous Jewish and Muslim commentaries on the old classical learning. Actually, it was the Muslim Spanish intellectual establishment and scholarship that made the European renaissance and later the Enlightenment possible.

So St. Thomas read not only the ancient Greek and Roman commentaries, but also the major Jewish and Muslim scholars. "

In respectful disagreement Alan it was my impression that the Renaissance was a direct result of the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453 at Constantinople that lead to the rebirth. From 1400 to 1453 upwards of 1,500,000 to 1,700,000 Eastern Romans/Greeks fled Islam to and went to Italy and the Italian held Greek Islands, taking thier books and Libraries.

Muslim Spain after the Conquest; did encourage arts and science, but was a slave Empire; some Toleration did exist. My recollection is Ben Yussef the Morrocan Emir that fought El Cid was a Muslim Fundementalist of the Almoravids and cut very much from the cloth of Al Qeada, they held an African Empire in addition to lands in Spain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almoravid_dynasty

MikeNY

03-19-2009, 06:17 PM

Alan thought you'd enjoy these sites and the history. http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa040201a.htm It seems Islam was involved 600 years in the African Slave Trade before the arrival of the Europeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery Slavery is natural part of islam and Muslim Civilization, Islam regards nonbelivers are chatel to be owned, and Dhimmi (subject people's) as a asset to exploited.

http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Slaves-Muslim-Masters-Mediterranean/dp/1403945519 Islam was also enslaveing Europeans. There were even people from the British Isles enslaved.

http://www.markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html here is an interesting site on slavery and killing for islam.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html Here is an online book " Bernard Lewis. Race and Slavery in the Middle East" .

When in Africa the People reported that 20 times as many Africans were taken as slaves into the Muslim World as by the Europeans. That figure might be low, the Muslims marched them across the Sahara Desert. I've read that the number of Africans brought to the Americas in much smaller than believed, the ships at the time were small, the Ocean is a desert without water and all the water and food needed had to be carried for everyone onboard. Columbus had warships that were much larger than commercial vessels.

Alan_OldStudent

03-19-2009, 10:06 PM

Hi MikeNY,

I thought the first two links are the most interesting and scholarly. The account in the second link seems much more nuanced than your brief one-sentence summation. As is often the case with Wikipedia, much material is covered in an in-depth way, presenting a variety of expert interpretations. It also has a wealth of links for further study and followup.

I recommend this article highly for its scholarship.

It is true that Islam provided for the legitimacy of slavery until relatively recently, as was the case in Judaism to a certain degree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery) and Christianity to a much greater degree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery). By and large, both Judaism and Christianity oppose slavery today, and many leading abolitionists historically have been Christians and considered abolition of slavery to be a Christian imperative.

And, although most Muslim Shariah scholarship, for the last 100 or so years, has seen slavery as being unjust and opposed to Islamic principles of equality, there are still schools of thought in Islam who do not see much wrong with slavery, most notably the the Wahhabi school, the official state religion of our "moderate" ally Saudi Arabia.

Here is a quote one may find from that second link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#contentSub) you provided:
Historically, the major juristic schools of Islam traditionally accepted the institution of slavery.[1] Muhammad and many of his companions bought, sold, freed, and captured slaves. Slaves benefited from Islamic dispensations which improved their situation relative to that in pre-Islamic society.[1] At the end of the 19th century, a shift in Muslim thought and interpretation of the Qur'an occurred, and slavery became seen as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality.[2] This interpretation has not been accepted by the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia.[3]

In Islamic law the topic of slavery is covered at great length.[1] The Qur'an, the holy book, and the hadith, the sayings of Muhammad, see slavery as an exceptional condition that can be entered into under certain limited circumstances.[3] They also consider manumission of a slave to be one of many meritorious deeds available for the expiation of sins.[4] According to Sharia, slaves are considered human beings and possessed of some rights on the basis of their humanity. In addition, a Muslim slave is equal to a Muslim freeman in religious issues and superior to the free non-Muslim.[5](emphasis added)

So, I'm not sure why you use the word "chattel" to describe this kind of Islamic slavery, although it most certainly was slavery. Here's how the Abolition Project defines chattel slavery (http://abolition.e2bn.org/glossary/view_glossary_0_C.html).
Chattel slavery :
A form of slavery, introduced by Europeans, in which the slave is treated as a piece of property, belonging to his or her owner, and has no rights; the slave is enslaved for life and his / her children are automatically enslaved too; chattel slaves can also be bought and sold just like cattle (from which the word chattel comes)

Here is what your citation on Islam and Slavery says about chattel slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery) and Islam:

The Qur'an, however, does not consider slaves to be mere chattel; their humanity is directly addressed in references to their beliefs,[24] their desire for manumission and their feelings about being forced into prostitution.[25] In one case, the Qur'an refers to master and slave with the same word, rajul.

It was slavery in the United States that was chattel slavery under the law of our founding fathers.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent